135mm L

[DrDeano]

Question:

I have a pretty decent array of lenses and prefer to shoot with primes. I am covered on the wide end with primes, but for longer focal lengths I end up using my 70-200 IS II. I have the 85 1.2 and LOVE it, but I was looking through Lightroom EXIF data and realized I do a ton of shooting in the 120-155mm range with the 70-200.

I really like tight face shots, and I like the bokeh of the 85 1.2. For those that have both the 70-200 and the 135 f/2 would you say it's worth getting the prime? I see people here talking about how much they LOVE their 135 and I see some of the shots and they look fantastic, but I often wonder if they have the 70-200 or not and which would they use if they had to choose.

Anyone have any thoughts? The price on the 135 is one of the more reasonably priced primes and I can't decide if it's a MUST have or if if would be something that gathers dust.

 

[IIIHobbs]

For me the 135 f2 replaced my 70-200

 

[drjlo]

I have both 135L and 70-200 f/2.8 II, and the latter is plenty of lens for most situations, superior even, when longer shutter speed is needed due to the IS. 70-200 certainly is not lacking in sharpness, either.

What 135L has is bokeh, magical bokeh, with great center sharpness wide open at f/2. Below was shot with 5DIII with 135L at f/2. The next photo is a crop in the middle to show the sharpness.



World Melting by drjlo1, on Flickr



100% Crop! by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[Crapking]

I regularly use both lenses and each has strengths/weaknesses-though the decision to use each is usually based on what I am hoping to achieve at a particular shoot. No two photographers will ever agree on which is 'better', but like any tool, each has its' role.
For an indoor sports/low light shooter, lighting/distance to target play huge role. Angle/background/bokeh also factor in my decision. Shutter speed, need for IS might also prompt me to grab the zoom and in some venues, the situation may require discretion in size of lens, so the 135 may be more acceptable.
For awhile I didn't have the prime and was happy/successful. After investing/expanding my style and tradecraft with the prime, I am capable of a few more things/styles of shots.
The value of this investment was worth it for me, but only you can answer that in your situation.

 

[nonac]

I have the 70-200 2.8. II and just bought the 135 about 3 weeks ago. They both serve specific purposes for me. The 135 is great for indoor sports, ie basketball and volleyball where the action is not too spread out. Get some great net shots in volleyball. The 70-200 works better outside on the sidelines of football and soccer games. The bokeh on the 135 is amazing, even on some if my indoor sports shots. I am glad I bought it.

 

[EOBeav]

I have the 70-200, but it's the f/4. I am renting a 135mm f/2 for some upcoming events (basketball and winter programs) where I need some long, fast glass. The 135 seemed just the ticket. If it produces images on my 5DmkII like I think it will, I just may end up selling a kidney to get one.

 

[Cosk]

After I bought my 135L, I eventually sold my 70-200 f/4IS for lack of use. Both lenses produce magical images, but the 135 is so compact and easy to handle, I stopped grabbing the 70-200. (And that's the little f/4 - you're going to love the liberation over the 2.8.) I do miss IS... yet the 135 has become my street photography lens. You can grab wonderful, candid portraits that show every eyelash, from across the street. And it doesn't draw attention.

Plus, you can put a 1.4x extender on it and have 190 f/2.8.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For me the 135 f2 replaced my 70-200

I also kept my 135mmL and sent back the 70-200 MK II. Its a wonderful lens, but heavy and the f/2 of my 135mmL makes a big difference in extreme low light.

 

[Standard]

If you love shooting with primes, the 135L will not disappoint. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you'll kick yourself for not picking it up sooner. It produces silky smooth bokeh and can see much better in the dark than any zoom lens. As you already have the 85L, you already know the latter. However the 135L is very responsive, much faster than the 85L.

 

[dirtcastle]

The relatively low weight and size of the 135mm f/2 makes the shooting experience very pleasant. I think a lot of people will agree that the size/performance ratio of the 135mm is nearly perfect, especially since the performance is so good at f/2.

 

[DonHorne]

The 135L was the main reason for me switching to Canon back in 2010 and it was everything I wanted and more. Stunningly sharp wide open, quick to focus and under $1K, it's by far the best lens purchase I've made.

 

[distant.star]

.
I suggest you buy two of them -- immediately.

Can't imagine not having the 135!!

 

[kbmelb]

I have never shot with the 70-200 2.8 IS II but I owned the mkI and thought it was pretty good but I wasn't blown away by the images out of it. I sold it to help pay for my 85 1.2II. After a short period of time I realized I wanted something longer and as fast as possible. The 200 2.0 just wasn't in the cards so I went 135L and I have been in love ever since.

It is super sharp and the bokeh is very very nice. I love going on assignments and finding spots where I can use this lens just because the shots are so intimate and beautiful.

 

[candyman]

Question:

I have a pretty decent array of lenses and prefer to shoot with primes. I am covered on the wide end with primes, but for longer focal lengths I end up using my 70-200 IS II. I have the 85 1.2 and LOVE it, but I was looking through Lightroom EXIF data and realized I do a ton of shooting in the 120-155mm range with the 70-200.

I really like tight face shots, and I like the bokeh of the 85 1.2. For those that have both the 70-200 and the 135 f/2 would you say it's worth getting the prime? I see people here talking about how much they LOVE their 135 and I see some of the shots and they look fantastic, but I often wonder if they have the 70-200 or not and which would they use if they had to choose.

Anyone have any thoughts? The price on the 135 is one of the more reasonably priced primes and I can't decide if it's a MUST have or if if would be something that gathers dust.

You mention that you do a ton of shooting in the range of 120-155mm. And you like tight face shots + bokeh. Those are very well THE reasons for buying the 135mm f/2 L
It is a lens easier to handle and not so prominent visible as the 70-200mm f/28 MK II. Though the latter is a great lens.

 

[TexasBadger]

Best lens I have ever owned. Buy it and enjoy!

 

[DrDeano]

Wow!

Overwhelming response and all suggest getting the 135L.

Thanks guys, it's now at the top of my wish list.

Time to start working on the wife

 

[Loswr]

Thanks guys, it's now at the top of my wish list.

Good choice, and good luck...

I bought a 135L after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while. For general use, I grab the zoom. When I know I'm going to be shooting portraits or low-light action, I grab the 135L.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 135L is a magic Black Tube with AF. I prefer it over the 70-200MM for light excursions.

 

[lastcoyote]

135L on it's way to me Saturday
super excited. so much so i've already added it to my signature

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

Lastcoyote, I see that you have the 100L as well. I've been debating on the purchase of the 135L. I'm really not interested in the 70-200 due to its size, weight, and conspicuousness. I'd be curious to see what your thoughts are regarding having both the 100L and 135L, and if there is enough to justify both in one's camera bag. Obviously, one doesn't go to f/2 and one doesn't do macro, but I figured I'd ask given the similar focal length. Cheers, and good luck with the lens.